Daring to dream the perfect dream

Advertisements

There would be something truly delicious if the the New Again Dear Leader were to lose his own seat on September 7 as polling in the Guardian suggests is possible:

click for source

I would think that If I were an elector in Griffith I would be mighty pissed off about Rudd failing to front up to a candidates debate in his own electorate. It shows rather disgusting arrogance and its proof that he is taking the voters in his own seat entirely for granted and if there is one thing that turns voters off its being taken for granted, Then again this could be a calculated effort from the New Again Dear Leader to deliberately loses his own seat so that he would not have to resign after the landslide. That is a scenario that I would not doubt knowing the practice that our New Again Dear Leader has had over the last three years he spent undermining Gillard. Rudd is a one man conspiracy and his whole strategy has been about his ego and what could be more humiliation for the New Again Dear Leader than losing the election and retaining his seat? The upside of him losing his seat would be a large saving to the tax payer as a by election would not be necessary…

Hopefully the New Again Dear Leader’s snub will be enough to make that saving and we will finally be rid of this loathsome man and his over inflated ego.

63 Comments

Ray reckoned earlier that it was a ridiculous suggestion for the PM to participate in a debate in his own electorate. He cited examples like Tony Abbott doing the same in his electorate.

The difference is, if Tony Abbott was challenged in his electorate to a debate, he would turn up, no fear on the face. He ran the City-to-Surf on the morning of the first debate, running with a blind man. He wouldn’t blanch at a local debate.

A piece of piss for a trained digger.

Rudd, on the other hand, is a puffed-up coward who baulked at the Sky debate a week ago. He’s running scared.

I know people who live in Griffith and I do think Rudd should be concerned about Glasson, whose campaign team are evidently VERY visible in the electorate.

Glasson is offering people the idea of voting for a local rather than a national Celebrity who seems to be rarely there.

Rudds no show at a debate last night with Glasson after agreeing to the debate will have gone down like the proverbial lead balloon, taking the electorate for granted.

Bit like the kid who gets an invitation to a birthday party at someones house and then at the last minute there’s another invitation to a party that’s being held at the ten pin bowling alley, so he dumps the first accepted invitation for what he thinks will be something better.

If you believe the opinion polls, there must be two elections going on. One is the Federal election, where the established pollsters agree that the Coalition has established a small but growing lead, averaging 52-48 on their latest polls. That’s a swing of 2 per cent.

The second election seems to be taking place in individual seats. It’s brought to us by the new kids on the block, the robo-pollsters, who use automated phone calls to bombard us with surveys that report huge swings to the Coalition.

On Thursday, a Guardian Lonergan poll reported that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd stands to lose his own seat of Griffith in a 10.5 per cent swing against Labor. If you haven’t heard of Lonergan, it’s because they are brand new; their accuracy is untested.

Polls like Lonergan’s can be taken with a grain of salt. They’re automated robot calls and, for all they know, they’re polling 12-year olds, nuff-nuffs and answering machines. Btw, Lonergan’s so-called research company is actually not a dedicated and independent polling firm. It’s a PR company that sells its services and gives whoever pays it the results they want to hear. Now I wonder who employed Lonergan to put out these ludicrous polls?

Really guys, I honestly think everyone is getting just a tad excited here.

There is a long way to go in the campaign, and I know that I have made up my mind, but there is still a major concern here.
Why haven’t the RBA’s “True State of the Economy” figures been released to the public ? I can’t find them at all ? I know I keep harping on this, but it is an important consideration, and one, that will really AFFECT the way a lot of people vote. I think the final fiscal deficit balance will scare the living c*ap out of a lot of people ?

It will all come down to mistakes made by either leader and party, and the staying power of the same ?
I think Ray (?) said it best a couple of weeks ago, it is a marathon, not a sprint ?
As for me, I am tired of the whole non-campaign already. I wish election day was tomorrow, (probably like the majority of everyone else ?), so it could all be over and done with, so whomever wins, can get on the with the job of fishing this mess of an economy, out of the drink, instead of blaming all our woes on a phantom financial crisis’ ?
😦

Where are Gough and Malcolm when you need them. At least there campaigns were fiery and a bit more interesting to watch ?

Tony
The irony is that its Rudd’s strategy to try to rile Tony up so that he will have a “Latham moment” but the person on the verge of a melt down is in fact Kevin. While I am happy to acknowledge that this is a long race that does not mean that I am obliged to be dour and serious about the stumbles of our New Again Dear Leader each and every time he makes one.

It certainly was an eye opener to see his “sort of” melt down, but to be on the fair side, it was pretty tame in the grand scheme of things.

Just noted on the ten news, that Abbott won’t release his costings until nearer the election date, and I suspect Rudd won’t release the actual budgetary position either, until much later. (as late as possible ?)
A good tactic when you think about it. The less time the voting public have to comprehend the bad news, the better it will be for Rudd, and labor as a whole.

As for the leader’s mistakes ? That is probably the only time we actually hear the truth during an entire campaign, by either side ?
😉

James, you’re bang on the money with those last few comments, especially the video of the Griffith debate. Watching the audience crack up laughing and heckling when Rudd’s ring-in tried to suggest that Labor’s massive debt/deficit wasn’t all that bad was priceless.

I have faith in the established polls like Neilsen-Fairfax, not in Robopolls like Lonergan’s. “Some people” need to brush up on their comprehension.

The 53-47 margin in the Neilsen poll is probably about where it sits, I’d suggest, but remember that that poll was conducted between 18 – 22 August and would not, therefore, fully reflect this week’s events. Still an uphill battle for the ALP to win.

List your questions, GD, and I’ll answer them again – ie as I have done before.

The questions are simple.

Why should we re-elect this failed Labor regime for a third term of government when every policy or initiative they have instigated has run way over budget and at the same time, either stalled or failed?

Your only answer to that has been:

Abbott will be worse.

As for Labor’s ever increasing debt, all you’ve done is blame it on the GFC.

Why should we re-elect this failed Labor regime for a third term of government when every policy or initiative they have instigated has run way over budget and at the same time, either stalled or failed

GD, when you load your question like that to include judgements, presumptions and opinions, guess what? It ain’t a question, it’s a statement.

If you have some reasonable questions go ahead and ask them – but make sure they’re not rhetorical nonsense like the one above.

Why should we elect Rudd for a third term when their track record over the last six years is far from being a glowing endorsement of brand Labor?

ON THE subject of Adolf Hitler, his book Mein Kempf,and Andrew Bolt’s book, “Still Not Sorry” would make a lovely Christmas present. Hitler an exterminator, and Bolt a “stolen generation denier’ snigger snigger, Top That, Shalom.,

Your question is still a loaded and rhetorical one and the only way to answer it as asked, is to say the last 6 years have been a tough period in which to govern and, in the circumstances, I believe they’ve done a fair job.

To go into further detail, I think Rudd deserves a second term after his first was put under extreme pressure due to the world economic near-meltdown that he had to deal with just one year after being elected. He was still dealing with that when he was unreasonably and wrongly removed as leader by some idiots in the party who, thankfully, are not continuing.

The Gillard 3 years were a nightmare, her biggest mistake being the carbon tax. If Gillard were still PM I’d say they deserve to lose office. But with Rudd back at the helm I think he’s shown enough to warrant a second term.

I think Rudd deserves a second term after his first was put under extreme pressure due to the world economic near-meltdown that he had to deal with just one year after being elected. He was still dealing with that when he was unreasonably and wrongly removed as leader by some idiots in the party who, thankfully, are not continuing

You’re stretching it again Ray.
I don’t know where you have got your expert information, regarding the effect of the GFC here in Australia ? Probably the labor party website, but it’s wrong ! You really have to learn to critique your information/propaganda sources more closely.

I can’t count the times, that economic experts have stated that other than political rhetoric, the GFC had NO EFFECT on the Australian economy. To protect us, during this phase, we had China waltz in, buying our natural resources at bargain basement prices, that protected us. To further prove the point, during times of credit crunches, and economic failures, what happens ? There is a rush on money, and interest rates rist. What happened here in Oz ? Interest rates fell to their lowest levels seen for decades. The only reason as to why they haven’t fallen further, is bank greed, and the competition of government entering the borrowing market, on a mad quest to borrow, to cover their own budget black holes. (enter the Labor Party ?)
That was why the effect was so devastating on the US. They live on credit. When that dried up, so did their economy.

To go into further detail, I think Rudd deserves a second term after his first was put under extreme pressure due to the world economic near-meltdown that he had to deal with just one year after being elected. He was still dealing with that when he was unreasonably and wrongly removed as leader by some idiots in the party who, thankfully, are not continuing.

You’re being repetative here.
To warrant a second term, Rudd, as well as all labor generally, have to show that they were trying, and that their policies were on the right track, and were in the process of beginning to work. Has that happened here ? No !

The debt continues ramapantly along, and doesn’t look like it wil wain any time soon. The policies that they have released, seem sound on the surface, but they haven’t got the money to pay for any of them, and that is not likely to change any time soon either.

Really Ray, you can’t continue to defend a party (which you have eloquently stated yourself, that you aren’t voting for ?), that has NO history of being able to show that they are reasonable, responsible fiscal managers ? To prove this further, one only has to look at the recent announcements by GM and Ford, the possible thousands of jobs disappearing in other industries, to such countries as China. What happened to Labor’s major ethos of being there to protect the working man’s rights ? What happened to that ?

Gillard’s three years, yes, were a major disaster, BUT and I note no one has brought this up anywhere, the same so called economic experts that were advising her, are now advising Rudd and the rest of his cronies

That is what has to change, as they have the whole policy development factory production totally backwards !

1. The government’s stimulus policy. Sure, it was funded by debt but that’s what responsible govts do in times of crisis – they inject liquidity into the economy, especially to keep the key building and retail sectors going.

2. The government underwriting the banks and guaranteeing deposits to avoid a ‘run’. This meant our banks kept lending and we avoided a credit crunch. Quite the opposite occurred because interest rates then fell and people kept borrowing to invest, further keeping the economy going.

Make no mistake, without 1 & 2 above, Australia would indeed have gone into deep recession. And we’d still be there.

I certainly can defend the government and, at the same time, vote for an Independent in my particular seat. The reasons for my vote are pragmatic – Labor cannot win this seat and never has. The only way of removing Sophie Mirabella (arguably this country’s most self-centred and arrogant politician) is with an independent. Sophie has ignored her electorate and given it no special projects or funding in her whole 12 years and has to go. It’s an apolitical decision to vote for the independent McGowan who is quite impressive, albeit it seems, connected to the Nats somehow. I’ve met her and she was genuinely interested in what I believe is needed in my town – and she’ll fight for it.

Seriously Ray, that’s rubbish.
Labor stimulus packages did nothing, except increase the market place for imported big screen televisions.
Neither of your explanations had anything to do with the GFC. You really are reaching there.

Australia has massive banking protection acts of parliament/laws in place specifically designed to prevent exactly what has occurred in Greece, as well as the banking failures over in the US. We all saw the pictures of unfinished housing estates, for example, over in the US, due directly to the banking collapses over there. We have laws in place to prevent exactly what happened there. I think from memory, these banking protections developed directly after the libs introduced banking federalism way back around 1949. Both parties have been “tinkering” with these laws for decades. With the introduction of c/cs back in the seventies (or whenever), teeth was given to consumer affairs legislation. The consumer protection act of 1972 was the start of it all, that upgraded the Goods Act (1958) Labor had nothing to do with either The act of 1972 was a liberal policy, ratified by Goff !

Labor’s underwriting of banks, was purely rhetoric designed to fool the illiterate and ignorant, sorry.

The principle has been in place ever since 1949. That is the reason as to why the RBA, introduced LCD’s. That is their insurance policy against banks going broke, as they have in the US. No one person, or entity, can own a bank in Australia. The same doesn’t apply to Building Societies, hence the Pyramid disaster and so on ? As well as that, and totally the opposite of the US, and other failed banking/economies ? Our credit institutions have been bound by very strict lending boundaries. Unlike the US and others, we no longer allow borrowings of 100% of valuations. That means that every house buyer in Oz, has at least some equity in their property, right from the start, or they don’t get the loan. Our lending practices are that much stricter.

As can be seen by the effectiveness of our current flock of independents, surely you can see that a vote for them, is a round-a-bout way of voting for labor ? In the last six years, the independents and greens have done so much damage by their inactions, that the electorate at large has no time for either these days ?

You don’t understand what I’m saying, Tony. The fact that the Govt guaranteed deposits meant our banks were able to continue to attract funds (locally & overseas) and keep borrowing and lending. I wasn’t suggesting that without the govt’s guarantee they would have gone “broke” (hardly likely considering their assets and profits over the years) only that without that guarantee, confidence would have been lost. Confidence by both investors and borrowers, thereby leading to a drop off in lending (due to decreased revenues and decreased demand). We have had a similar ‘credit crisis’ like that in the past – in 1961 and again in the late 80s early nineties. Regardless of any laws, the banks operate in, and are subject to, market forces but, with the govt guarantee, it helped to see off any adverse market force impacts (as mentioned above). There is no doubt whatsoever that we would have had a credit crisis without that government undertaking to guarantee all deposits.

As for saying, “Labor stimulus packages did nothing, except increase the market place for imported big screen televisions”, you’re kidding, right? Yes, some of the money went into electrical and other retail goods – what’s wrong with that? It kept retail going. But most of the stimulus went into the building industry – school halls & insulation. Regardless of overspends and other problems the fact is the govt injected billions of dollars into the important building industry, as well as upping the FHBG. That was crucial in keeping the economy buoyant because building also keeps local manufacturing going as well as other service industries. To say it achieved “nothing” is pure blind ignorance.

I also think you don’t understand what I (as well as well documented history) am saying either Ray.

Labor’s grandstanding re the bank guarantee was entirely rhetoric ! They didn’t need to, as the protections, i.e. the bank guarantee as such had already been in place since 1949 ffs !

The reason for the credit crunches in the time frames you mentioned ?
Simple really. I don’t know about 1961, but in the eighties, I remember banking deposit interest rates hitting 17.5% !
Housing lending rates were at the time, 13.8%.
The banks were beginning to realise, that they were paying out more, than what they were receiving. Along with that at the time, building societies etc were offering even higher interest rates, and so banks as such, were therefore losing their domination of the available funds lending markets.
Housing prices at the same time, were skyrocketing, and the whole situation became unsustainable. Hence the inevitable crash ?

The reasons as to why we now have record low banking deposits, are many fold. I think you know nearly all of them anyway being a business man ?
But a few that come immediately to mind ?

the main one being the Low rate of return,
Massive increases in bank fees,
People’s inability (unlike our parents and grandparents) to go without the luxuries,
Our lack of reticence about going into debt, (people now spend more of their disposal income on the repaying of debt. Especially credit card debt.) People don’t save anymore.

As to your saying what’s wrong with that? It kept retail going certainly a fair enough statement, but what did it do to the balance of payments situation for instance ?
It killed it !
If the stimulus money had been spent on locally made products, then yes certainly, that would have had a dramatic upward affect on Australian ecnonomy. But, it didn’t dd it ? If the money had been earmarked from the start, to be spent on Australian made products, that would have saved jobs, as well as our woeful balance of payments situation. Another great stuff up by Labor, illconceived, and poorly thought through ?

But most of the stimulus went into the building industry – school halls & insulation

And finally, wow !, just what a bloody success either those two programs were ?
Just how many school halls were built again ?
How many houses destroyed by incompetent cowboy installation installers were there again ?
Yep, more labor victorious policies to add to their glory chest for sure ?
😉

THE Government will guarantee the $600-$700 billion deposits in Australian financial institutions in a move to shore up local confidence and protect the nation’s international competitiveness.

Declaring that the country is in “the economic equivalent of a rolling national security crisis”, Kevin Rudd has also announced that all borrowing by Australian banks and other deposit-taking institutions from overseas will be guaranteed.

The deposit and lending guarantees are unprecedented in Australian banking history and are an immediate response to the dramatic moves by other countries to prop up their failing financial systems.

Another $4 billion is also being injected for non-bank institutions to provide more funds for housing and extra competition to the big banks.

Unprecedented. Got it?

The move was also backed by the Coalition:

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull pledged support for the measures and backing to get legislation quickly through Parliament. “I think Australians want to see their leaders working together,” he said.

The deposit guarantee, which takes effect immediately, will operate for three years without any cap, and will then be reviewed. The guarantee for borrowings abroad will last until conditions have normalised.

You are so far off the mark it’s not funny. And we actually have high personal savings rates now and reductions in personal debt. People have being using excess savings (on interest cuts) to reduce their debts and/or to save. You have that back to front too.

As for how many school halls were built – there was a shit load. Go to any suburb or even a small town like Bright and you’ll see the $millions ($billions) that were spent on providing some great new facilities. They may have been expensive but they (a) put a lot of money into the economy via the building contracts (b) are of use and will be of great benefit to education for many years to come.

Stop ranting and wake up – Rudd’s stimulus, for all its faults, actually worked. As did his swift action on bank deposits.

Ray
Even if we accept that some stimulus was required that naturally begs the question of how much stimulus was appropriate and if we could have got the same bang for less bucks. Further there are serious questions about the nature of the government stimulus and on both counts Rudd and Gillard both come up with a less than glowing record. I am pretty sure that history will judge Labor over the last six years very harshly.

Also if that is the only virtues that you can cite for the last six years of Labor rule then its a pretty thin resume. On the other side of the ledger the mistakes, stupidity and down ineptitude are there by the wheel barrow load, even when it comes to ideas that are frankly not that bad. But mostly they are in the crapper because time and time again they have promised big and delivered small. Just look at every budget delivered by Wayne Swann all have had to be revised because costs have been underestimated and revenues over estimated. That is precisely the way to lose the respect of the people and while under Costello budgets were likewise often wrong in their predictions, they did it the other way round, over estimated costs and under estimated revenues which gave them repeated opportunities to look good when they could announce that they had more money than expected.

Seriously Ray, stop being so condascending. You’re wrong !
You still haven’t stated as to why I am so far off the mark yet ?

The entire quote, from the Age, is again, nothing but minutia, designed to fool those like yourself, not up with the way credit/banking legislation has developed over the last 60 odd years. You’re falling for the labor propaganda sheet, hook line and sinker.

Read again what I said above. The entire bank guarantee dribble, was just a reinstatement of what has been in place since 1949, and you are foolishly falling for it, WITHOUT QUESTION.

The one act that reinforced the above, was the Trade Practices Act, I think brought in by Gough from memory in 1974, and been continually given bigger teeth, by successive federal governments since, as that was seen a big vote winner at the time.
That act combined all previous consumer protection acts, as well as provide new measures to protect the consumer against unconscionable conduct by business.

What sort of quanitification in numbers is a shitload Ray ? 🙄
You will have to do better than that ffs ?

The majority, of especially high schools, built in the seventies, (as well as the eighties), already came with a large hall, as part of the design. You only have to drive around the Melbourne suburbs, passing a high school, and you can see, they are all the bloody same. The same design, colour and use the same construction method.

I don’t know where your figures are coming from, but our savings are not the highest, and our debt levels are the reverse of what you are portraying. Our personal debt levels, are amongst the highest in the world.

Those figures you are probably looking at, if any, probably include personal superannuation, and not technically should be classified as savings, so, what you are stating is unsubstantiated dribble.

You’re the one that has to wake up Ray, and more problamatic, begin to seriously critique what labour propaganda you are being fed, and even more sad, swallowing ?
😉

The stimulus package was a good idea Iain, the only problem I saw with it, was there was no proviso, that it had to be spent on Australian made goods and services ?
There at least, it could have done some good, and for the labor propaganda machine, be SEEN as being appropriate, and not a bad idea, to stimulate a stagnant economy, instead of lining Gerry Harvey’s hip pocket ?

Iain, the simple reality is that if we’d put less into the stimulus package, then we would have put less liquidity into the economy. The money was spent (the bulk of it) in Australia and for Australians. Sure, some went on buying overseas TVs etc, but the importer lands one here for, what, one quarter of the end-selling price? Ergo, the great bulk of the money stays in Australia.

But most money went into school buildings (which fyi Tony are everywhere you care to look – brand new & shiny. Where the hell do you live?) and thereby into the building trade and local manufacturers like brick suppliers, timber suppliers, window suppliers, concrete producers, the list goes on and on, not to mention the trades and jobs that benefitted.

Tony, I won’t continue to argue with you on this any further – if you think the Trade Practices Act in some way underwrites our banks, well, mate .. bloody hell!! Btw, I’m watching the game but it’s half time. I only need to come here on a break.

if you think the Trade Practices Act in some way underwrites our banks, well, mate .. bloody hell!

WTF are you on about here ?
I am not stating it again, it is above, at least twice for everyone to read. Obviously, you don’t get it, so no point in explaining it to you further.
It is as if, you have your fingers in your ears, (and eyes) shrieking at the top of your voice, lalalalalalala, ignoring the obvious ?
Good luck with it.

The above again proves to me, that you are a lazy researcher, if you even research your rebuttals at all ?
It has nothing to do with the TPA Ray.
The policy comes under RBA covenents, as part of the government’s control over the banks, overseen by the RBA.
However, these same controls, do not apply to credit unions nor building societies, they are legislated for seperately.
It is all part of the federal government treasury’s ability, to control how much cash is available at any one time in an economy.
LCD’s, the bond market, interest rates, excise and duty, and so on.

Depositor Protection and Failure Resolution
Strong prudential regulation and supervision, and sound management at individual institutions, have meant that ADI failures in Australia have been very
rare. A few smaller institutions failed in the late 1980s and early 1990s during a period of stress in the banking system that followed financial deregulation
in the mid 1980s, but these failures were resolved without loss to depositors.

In addition to this low failure rate, Australian depositors benefit from strong protections in the unlikely event that an ADI does fail. The principal
mechanism for depositor protection has historically been the preferred status granted to Australian depositors over other unsecured creditors in the
event of the insolvency of an Australian ADI. This legislative provision is referred to as ‘depositor preference’. Depositor protection arrangements were
considerably strengthened with the introduction of the FCS in 2008, under which the Australian Government guarantees the prompt repayment of
deposits at a failed Australian ADI up to a specified cap (see below).

and on page 5 of the same document ?

The principle of depositor protection in Australia was first enshrined in the Banking Act 1945

The legislation specified depositor protection as a function of the central bank (then the Commonwealth Bank of Australia) in accordance with its responsibility for prudential regulation of banks and the resolution of distressed banks (Cornish 2010). The Banking Act 1959 transferred these responsibilities to the RBA upon its establishment as Australia’s dedicated central bank. The RBA interpreted its depositor protection responsibility broadly to mean using its available powers in the interests of protecting depositors’ funds, rather than implying that it should provide a blanket guarantee or protection against all failures (RBA 1997).

The Australian Government has developed an easy to recognise seal that authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs) can choose to use to help depositors understand that their deposits are protected under the Government’s bank deposit guarantee (also commonly referred to as the Financial Claims Scheme (FCS)).

A financial institution does not have to use or display the seal. If it chooses not to display the seal, that doesn’t mean the account is not guaranteed.

The FCS applies to deposits held in all authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs) incorporated in Australia. This includes banks of all sizes, credit unions and building societies.

Under the FCS, the Government guarantees deposits up to a cap of $250,000 per account-holder, per ADI.
Australian Government guaranteed deposits seal

All ADIs –whether they are small or large – need to meet the same, extensive prudential standards and are overseen by the same regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA).

Tony, the Depositor Protection and Failure Resolution Act of 1945 DID NOT guarantee deposits. It merely provided priority for depositors over other creditors in the event of a bank collapse. From your own quote:

The principal mechanism for depositor protection has historically been the preferred status granted to Australian depositors over other unsecured creditors in the event of the insolvency of an Australian ADI

It then goes on to point out that Rudd’s actions of 2008 provided the only 100% guarantee:

Depositor protection arrangements were considerably strengthened with the introduction of the FCS in 2008, under which the Australian Government guarantees the prompt repayment of deposits at a failed Australian ADI up to a specified cap

And Page 5 merely confirms that prior to 2008 there were no guarantees in place – it actually uses those words (or words to that effect):

The RBA interpreted its depositor protection responsibility broadly to mean using its available powers in the interests of protecting depositors’ funds, rather than implying that it should provide a blanket guarantee or protection against all failures

It’s plain English, Tony, and you just proved yourself wrong – bank deposits were not fully guaranteed until Rudd underwrote them in 2008. You have misinterpreted the old Act. And you were the one who mentioned it was also covered by the Trade Practices Act, not me.

Please cut the insults – you are incorrect. On a technical point maybe, but a strong and important one, you are completely wrong.

Now please don’t crack the shits (again) and start ranting (again). I really don’t care for your carry on, nor do I want to play “gotchas” and “I won” games, like you do. You were just mistaken, Tony.

Thought this was a bit of a gem too, from todays campaigning roundup. Looks like Rudds Labor ‘New Way’, hasn’t got through to some, they prefer Rudd’s Óld Way’, Ruddness, sorry typo, Rudeness:

“Labor’s Dawson candidate Bronwyn Taha & Labor Senator Mark Furner were booted from Mackay Showground Markets this morning for repeatedly breaking the market rules on staying in the allocated stall spot despite being warned. Then after they gave a burst of rudeness to the market manager they were told: You’re not welcome back.”

James, first of all I think you meant to direct that sarcastic remark at me, not Tony. Secondly, I did not set out to be “right” here. I merely stated (if you care to scroll back) that Rudd guaranteed bank deposits as part of the measures to protect our economy. It was Tony who then went on a tangent to claim (erroneously) that deposits were already guaranteed before Rudd’s actions. They clearly weren’t, as you can see by the very ‘proof’ Tony attempted to provide himself. I can’t help it if Tony made a mistake – an honest mistake – and I don’t care to claim “I’m right”. I merely pointed out he had misunderstood the facts, which are namely that prior to 2008 our bank deposits were only partially protected and were not fully guaranteed (because until 2008 such guarantees were not deemed necessary). That is all.

Oh, and Julie Bishop and the Liberal candidate from Corangamite were similarly rude to security at a Geelong shopping mall who asked them to leave as they didn’t have permission to campaign on the property. Both sides do it.

Only Rudd has specified the amount. The paragraphs I mentioned, encased ALL DEPOSITS regardless of stature. It is only the labor party, that has seen fit to specify an amount somewhere. Again, more needless policy from a party, in an area that didn’t need it ? Rudd has only done it, so as to prevent future implied massive loss if they do go belly up.

Makes me think, what does Rudd know, that we don’t, that would rally he, and his cohorts, to do this, when governments of either persuasion over the decades, have not seen fit to desperately make this distinction ?

It is a shame that you can’t see it, but all bank depoits were guaranteed Ray. It is only you, gnit picking that can’t see it.
I think you are getting confused, with such fiascos as perhaps the Pyramid fiasco all those years ago.
The latest policy regarding guaranteeship, even though not specifically enshrined and penned in legislation, has been implied and state of the industry practise since 45. After all, when was the last time you heard of a bank going bad in Australia after WW2 ? None has, and that is half the reason, as to why, the RBA is there in the first place, to make certain that it doesn’t happen !

Also, that is why the regulations, regarding debt to asset ratio is so much lower, and regulated by the RBA, in banks, than any other financial institution in Australia, just so there are funds available if the bank goes bad. After the crash in Greece, and the rest of Eu, even with a small run on our own banks, they were still in fine shape until things settled down again. That is exactly as to why our banking reglations are amongst the tightest in the world.

Please cut the insults – you are incorrect. On a technical point maybe, but a strong and important one, you are completely wrong.

That was going to be my comment to you. Above, I have quoted the RBA bible, and still you don’t get it.

If I am so wrong, where am I so wrong ?

When has an Australian bank depositor lost money, or gone broke since 1945 ?
Never, that’s when. That is where the “implied” federal government guarantee, through the RBA, has been effective, and remains so today. Regardless of what propaganda Rudd tries to get all and sundry to believe.
NO ONE has ever lost their deposits through actions of an Australian bank, no matter how you, and of course the labor party, try to spin it Ray !

Tony, it is not true that prior to 2008 the RBA “implied” all deposits were fully guaranteed and it says so quite clearly in your documents:

The RBA interpreted its depositor protection responsibility broadly to mean using its available powers in the interests of protecting depositors’ funds, rather than implying that it should provide a blanket guarantee or protection against all failures

That’s where you are wrong (or mistaken).

Yes, I agree that until 2008 the protection provided was “adequate”, but the GFC of 2008/9 was the worst economic meltdown since the 1930s depression and it was actually the banks who sought the guarantees from Rudd for their own protection. And Rudd obliged by enshrining that guarantee in legislation. It wasn’t a gimmick, it was necessary.

Sorry Ray, but even though you technically correct, in that no legislation was written enforcing the banks sustainablity, the RBA through respective governments enforced the same through its policy dealings with the banks. It has only been since the deregulation of the banking industry, allowing foreign players into our market, that have caused the latest. Even though foreign owned, before they are granted a banking licence in Australia, they have to abide by the RBA’s practices, deposit gurantees being on the biggies ?

As to your quote, you are reading it out of context.
That paragraph was inferring the higher risk, and the falling over of building societies and credit unions. Those are NOT recognised banking institutions covered under the RBA legislation. Again, the example of Pyramid comes to mind. Neither should they be covered either. They were offering higher, unsustainable high interest rates, and when the inevitable happened it all fell over.

What happened though ? From memory, the state government sent all depositers a small compensatory cheque to help cover their losses. They didn’t have to do that, it was not in legislation for them to that, and that is what I was referring to, when I stated “inferred government protection” ?

Ok, rather than continuing the to and fro here, if you choose not to see it, then so be it, and we are never going to agree.

As Rudd’s “save” is in such a “perceived” grey area, we will leave it at that. The only reason as to why our banks were not facing meltdown during the GFC, was again due to strict lending practices, introduced during the Howard / Keating era. Their loan portfolios were limited by RBA provisos. They weren’t allowed to lend all their funds in one facet, rather, had to ensure that their loan portfolos were mixed and varied. Housing, mineral exploration, industrial redevelopment, overseas investment and so on, so that if one facet fell over, the others could cover their losses, to ensure they didn’t go broke. These later provisos, admittedly, as I said, were introduced, fine tuned etc, by BOTH sides of the political fence, and one of the main reasons as to why the guarantee, should never have been found to be necessary in the first place.

Even though our banks were caught out by the crash, especially in the US, none of them were exposed to such an extent, so as to put them, or their Australian depositors at devastating financial risk. Again, not by regulation by Rudd and Co, but by conventions set down by the RBA since 1945 ? They worked then, why the necessary big swoop on it now by Rudd and Co ? Grandstanding that’s why.

Iain, Have you a brother a Catholic Priest? Very sensitive to Pedophiles in the Church I notice.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Copyright

Portions of any work that are quoted are reproduced on the basis of the "fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review" section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.
let's look at the Australian Copyright Council's fact sheet on Fair Use:

The Federal Court has stated that “criticism and review” involves making a judgment of the material concerned, or of the underlying ideas. Criticism and review may be strongly expressed, and may be expressed humorously, and need not be balanced. The defence can apply where the criticism or review takes place in a commercial context, such as in published books or newspapers or on commercial television.

However, the court emphasised that the purpose of criticism or review must be genuine. If the person has other motives – especially if these motives involve using the material to make a profit, or using a competitor’s material to
divert customers from the competitor – the fact that they have also engaged in a form of criticism or review is not
enough to prevent the use from infringing copyright

All other content on this site is copyright Iain Hall and may not be reproduced in any form with out explicit permission of the author.

Comment Copyright

Anyone who comments at the Sandpit under a pseudonym does so on the clear understanding that by doing so they are giving any and all rights and ownership of those comments to the site-owner who may reproduce them in any form or at any other site or venue entirely at his own discretion.